August 16, 2011

But is it ever the case that the person who decries "games" is not himself a game-player?

And speaking of the perception of politics as a game and what it takes to end the game, let me, once again, embed the classic Russ Feingold clip:

"This game is not over until we win."

IN THE COMMENTS: Meade said:

“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

Think about that. Obama common sense says: Increase taxes under virtually any circumstance.

I always know that I'm dealing with a person who has a small and ineffective mind when their main complaint against politicians is that they won't get along and compromise, and are too busy "playing games" and wanting to "win".

They get bonus points for extra-stupidity if they talk about politics "these days" in an implication that things in the past were somehow better and kinder.

“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

Think about that. Obama common sense says: Increase taxes under virtually any circumstance.

From the WAPO account of the trip: “I think he’s doing a good job. He inherited a very big deficit,” said Bob Sixta, a financial planner from Rochester. “He and Michelle are the first residents of the White House to be familiar with both organic food and leftovers.”

“I think he’s doing a good job. He inherited a very big deficit,” said Bob Sixta, a financial planner from Rochester. “He and Michelle are the first residents of the White House to be familiar with both organic food and leftovers.”

First, but for George Washington. Who also inherited a big deficit.

I'm mildly interested in he use of the word "Washington" as synecdoche. Obama is using Washington to represent Congress. But is Obama not Washington as well? Consider the weakness of his gambit: My name is Barack Obama. I'm from Washington and let me tell you, "you've got to send a message to Washington..."

Playing a game about stopping the games, Obama asks for a message that he doesn't plan to receive.

I laugh myself silly (it is way better than crying) at your threads title. The only thing I recall from my, very liberal poly-sci professor: "To understand a politician, you need only to realize that their only goal is re-election." The only saving grace for the current crop, is that there really isn't any way for them to perform more badly, is there? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller?

Obama is not good with numbers,and his economic theories would earn him a D in a feshman economics class.

Anyway, all this jabber about raising or cutting taxes is mostly smoke and mirrors, hens' teeth, and horse feathers. As screwed up as our economic policies and tax codes are, no one can even tell who is paying what.

Just one f. ex., "tax breaks to 'Big Oil.' This actually is subsidizing oil and gasoline prices to consumers at the pump. Cut the subsidies, and gas prices go up. (And that, of course, is also true for fuels from "Little Oil" and "Medium Oil," etc., as well.)

So, should the subsidies be cut? Well, I think so, because I think that all attempts by government to manipulate the economy just causes distortions that in the end will cause more trouble than any possible benefits that might be derived.Farm subsidies are a prime example of this. (And "family farms" do not appear to have derived much if any benefits from these programs that ostensibly were enacted specifically to benefit them.)

These issues should be debated, but not with this "tax the rich" populist rhetoric. "The rich" are not the ones who will wind up getting screwed.

“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

"Think about that. Obama common sense says: Increase taxes under virtually any circumstance."

I'm assuming this is an example of grammatic gamesmanship.

Not increasing taxes under any circumstances and increasing taxes under any circumstances are radically different things.

Of course all politicans play games. They love games and they love to win.

Somebody who doesn't want to play games couldn't stand to be in the political sphere for very long because he/she would want to return to her farm and get away from the nonsense. It's not very often, but occasionally legislators will serve for a few terms and choose to leave politics. Not because they can't win, but because they don't like the games.

Heck, think of all the money obama and michelle "saved" the taxpayers ... when they wouldn't give Bibi Netanyahu any soup!

And, then, he goes to England. Gets dinner and toasts at the palace. Is up there giving his toast ... when all the guests rise ... And, the band begins serenading the queen. He kept on going. Because he was giving the toast.

Meade:“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

Think about that. Obama common sense says: Increase taxes under virtually any circumstance.

Contrary to one or two comments, Meade's reframing is correct (sorry for not being able to get the symbols exactly right):

I suspect that all occupants of the White House until at least the early 20th century ate what we call 'organic food.' Maybe even leftovers. But if you're a financial planner from Rochester, out to praise the Obamas, you probably don't want to sully them by association with the likes of Buchanan or Andrew Johnson.

"According to local press accounts, Calvin Coolidge was the last president to come to Cannon Falls. The year was 1928."

And it didn't do much for him, as he chose not to run in 1928.

Still, it must be impressive to say, "I'm walking in Calvin Coolidge's footsteps!" For Coolidge was known as a man of few words. And perhasp the current president would do well to emulate him (at least in that respect).

Faulty logic and rhetoric is the trademark of the demogogue. Proposition: no taxes under any circumstances. Is the opposite of that proposition taxes under all circumstances? How about taxes under some circumstances? Would not that proposition also negate propsotion one? Why assume the "all" instead of the "some"? More convienent to try and score soem cheap, silly political point that Obama is just a tax and spend liberal looking to pick the pockets of poor taxpayers (or rich ones). The same Obama that agreed to extend the Bush Tax Giveaway? The same Obama who bucked his own party to do so? The same Obama who gave tax breaks to the middle classes and who has tried to just roll back some of the cuts for the wealthiest? A plan not new to him but support by many including Buffett? Why should I or anyone care if Billonaire hedge funds "managers" are forced to pay thier fair share of taxes? Lets quit fighting to save the safest amonst us.

"“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

Think about that. Obama common sense says: Increase taxes under virtually any circumstance."

Meade's logic is better than the lefty logic I hear.

"You oppose tax increases so you oppose all taxes."or"You oppose this overreaching government program so you oppose all government programs."